"Ok, so that was a close one. For a moment there, I was starting to worry that the Democrats weren't going to to take back the House and rescue us from 'the brink of fascism.'

The next two years will be a demonstration of the global capitalist empire and its predominant propaganda machine the likes of which the world has never witnessed. By November 3, 2020, they will need to have brainwashed enough Americans into voting for whatever global capitalist puppet the Democrats end up nominating to defeat Donald Trump in the general election, which isn't going to be a cakewalk. To do this, they will need to foment such an atmosphere of mindless hysteria, emotional exhaustion, and paranoia that anyone to the left of Mussolini will stagger to the polls on election day and vote for the Democrat just to make it stop..."

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in Nancy Pelosi's corner. The 29-year old progressive star, who will become the youngest member of Congress, criticized a letter signed by 16 Democrats calling for new leadership and announcing they will not vote for Pelosi as House Speaker..."

"...That the Democratic Party is now choosing between the continued leadership of Pelosi, one of the richest members of Congress and a diehard defender of Wall Street and American imperialism, and an even more right-wing figure backed by the militarist Seth Moulton and his group of 'CIA Democrats', only testifies to its reactionary character.

Ocasio-Cortez has been heavily promoted, not only by the DSA, but by a large section of the corporate media and the Democratic Party establishment itself, to give the Democratic Party a 'left' cover while Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pursue an accommodation with the Trump administration..."

"The numbers have come out - A foreign country DID INDEED heavily manipulate the US midterms. In fact it funded 28 political action committees to corrupt Congress! Unfortunately, it's not Russia. It's Israel. So the mainstream media can't mention it."

I was reflecting on her Real News appearance on the night of the election. She was one of, if not the youngest, person there speaking to the panel. Everyone else has had more time to witness the usual cycle of Democrats shifting left rhetorically, then letting down their base, then the Republicans get elected, then people are so fed up with the Republicans that the Democrats are re-elected based on platitudes, wash, rinse, repeat. The fact that she was by far the most pessimistic of the panelists on that question speaks volumes.

It's great that Ocasio Cortez was able to oranize the demonstrations on Capitol Hill asking for a Green New Deal. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel interests that donate to the Democratic Party will block that agenda. Soon, Ocasio Cortez will have to either side with the Democratic Establishment or the people who elected her to Congress. She is one member of a 200-plus Caucus that is controlled by people opposed to the policies she mentioned in her tweet upthread. And as NDPP pointed out, after criticizing Pelosi, she is now backing Pelosi because all the other people who have come forward are actually worse! Can you believe that?

To any outside observer, there is no clear progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, and the matter of going in a more progressive or centrist direction is no more settled than it was 2 years ago. Besides, if the progressive wave is that strong within the Democratic Party, then why did Christine Hallquist, Ben Jealous, Andrew Gillum, Stacy Abrams, and Cynthia Nixon fail in their bids for Governor?

"...Dysfunction is the cost of capitalism. 'Wrong life cannot be lived rightly', as Adorno put it. So one part of the fall out from this prolonged exposure to the irrationality of life in neo liberal america has been to normalize lying.

When Alexandria Ocasio Cortez praises Nancy Pelosi...I have found many people, maybe the majority, expressing something along the lines of, well 'she has to say that sort of thing.' Or she is only kissing the ring so she can later create possibilities for real change. The fact she was lying is excused. It is excused because america itself lies. And deep down those saying this stuff know full well Ocasio Cortez will become Nancy Pelosi, not fight against her.

The american political drama or electoral theater, is reinforced so aggressively because it is the most basic and effective distraction people have for their social malaise and misery. I can vote for whoever I choose. Well, off a menu of two. It is no doubt true that america is a full blown open fascist society today. But it was already..."

"Besides, if the progressive wave is that strong within the Democratic Party, then why did Christine Hallquist, Ben Jealous, Andrew Gillum, Stacy Abrams, and Cynthia Nixon fail in their bids for Governor?"

Jealous and Hallquist lost their races to incumbent Republican governors by large margins. Nixon didn't even make it onto the ballot in New York state, and again, she lost her challenge to Cuomo by a large margin. There is a case that voter supression and voter fraud had an impact in Georgia and Florida, but frankly I think that's just an excuse the Demorcats are making to excuse their underperformance. Obama was President for 8 years, 2 of which he had complete control of the House and the Senate. If voter supression was that important to the Democrats, why did they not move on that file when they could have essentially done anything they wanted?

Furthermore, there were complaints about voter supression raised in the light of the 2000 election. Do you know how many Democratic senators at that time stood up and asked for an investigation? None.

The voter supression ploy is something the Democrats use to exploit their base for votes, but they never actually do anything about it when they have the chance.

Jealous and Hallquist lost their races to incumbent Republican governors by large margins. Nixon didn't even make it onto the ballot in New York state, and again, she lost her challenge to Cuomo by a large margin. There is a case that voter supression and voter fraud had an impact in Georgia and Florida, but frankly I think that's just an excuse the Demorcats are making to excuse their underperformance. Obama was President for 8 years, 2 of which he had complete control of the House and the Senate. If voter supression was that important to the Democrats, why did they not move on that file when they could have essentially done anything they wanted?

From my limited understanding, this voter suppression thing is nothing but. In Alabama or Georgia if a voter ha not voted for several cycles, a letter is sent to them asking them if they would still like to vote. If there’s no response then they are taken off the list. Apparently this is done at the state level not federal

Also in the case of Georgia were that tight race was, it was the Democrats who made these so called voter suppression laws.

"Enemies of the people do not become heroes of the people just because Trump dislikes them or they dislike Trump. The desire to defend a bankrupt investigation into the nothing burger that is the claim of Russian interference has driven Democrats to openly defend and align with the most heinous white supremacist elements that the US state has to offer.

The accusation that Trump 'colluded' with Russia to win the 2016 election remains evidence-free despite over two years of non-stop media coverage and investigation into the matter. This bankrupt narrative essentially blames Russia for Trump. It is a desperate attempt on the part of the Democrat Party to flee from accountability for its own shortcomings and drum up war sentiments toward Russia in service of Wall Street, the Pentagon and US spy agencies.

The left has no dog in this fight. Yet no viable or visible left formation other than independent media such as Black Agenda Report, MintPressNews, RT and the like have taken the time to condemn Miller and his ruling class minions. The tendency of the left to condemn Trump and Trump alone has become a diseased excuse to move politically in the direction of fascism under the guise of 'resistance'..."

A very alarming phenomenon to behold but not surprising if you've been exclusively immersed in establishment propaganda msm house organs such as NYT or WaPo etc

Even as the country struggled to beat back double-digit unemployment, addressing the debt became among the most pressing issues in Washington. Think tanks and pundits on all sides of the spectrum lined up to warn of the dire consequences of avoiding an “adult” conversation about the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicare.

And the Obama administration -- rather than fight the narrative of out-of-control debt tooth and nail -- chose to accommodate it.

Just a year into Obama's presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and toward austerity. The president convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010, co-chaired by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), and charged it with forging a fiscal “grand bargain.” That became the catchphrase of choice on the Bowles-Simpson commission -- and in budget talks in subsequent years -- for a compromise agreement to reduce the long-term debt, through a combination of Social Security and Medicare cuts historically anathema to Democrats and revenue increases and defense cuts hard for Republicans to swallow.

josh wrote:

And the party is more to the left than even two years ago and way more than in the 1990s.

By what measure are you stating that the party has moved to the left in recent years? More importantly, how can we trust that this time, the Democrats really mean it, since being in opposition (even with control of the House) they can say whatever progressive platitudes they want, only to turn their backs on it once elected?

Jealous and Hallquist lost their races to incumbent Republican governors by large margins. Nixon didn't even make it onto the ballot in New York state, and again, she lost her challenge to Cuomo by a large margin. There is a case that voter supression and voter fraud had an impact in Georgia and Florida, but frankly I think that's just an excuse the Demorcats are making to excuse their underperformance. Obama was President for 8 years, 2 of which he had complete control of the House and the Senate. If voter supression was that important to the Democrats, why did they not move on that file when they could have essentially done anything they wanted?

What could they have done? States run elections in the U.S.

1) Democratic Senators could have backed up their House colleagues who were complaining about voter supression during the 2000 Presidential election. Had they done that there could have been actual hearings on that subject. Instead, the Demorcatic Senators remained silent, and Bush became President

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

Even as the country struggled to beat back double-digit unemployment, addressing the debt became among the most pressing issues in Washington. Think tanks and pundits on all sides of the spectrum lined up to warn of the dire consequences of avoiding an “adult” conversation about the unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicare.

And the Obama administration -- rather than fight the narrative of out-of-control debt tooth and nail -- chose to accommodate it.

Just a year into Obama's presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and toward austerity. The president convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010, co-chaired by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.), and charged it with forging a fiscal “grand bargain.” That became the catchphrase of choice on the Bowles-Simpson commission -- and in budget talks in subsequent years -- for a compromise agreement to reduce the long-term debt, through a combination of Social Security and Medicare cuts historically anathema to Democrats and revenue increases and defense cuts hard for Republicans to swallow.

josh wrote:

And the party is more to the left than even two years ago and way more than in the 1990s.

By what measure are you stating that the party has moved to the left in recent years? More importantly, how can we trust that this time, the Democrats really mean it, since being in opposition (even with control of the House) they can say whatever progressive platitudes they want, only to turn their backs on it once elected?

Obama never supported the recommendation of that commission. The creation of which was to get someone’s vote as I recall. And the point I was responding to was the claim that the Democrats would protect those programs from privatization. Not that they would expand them. And since they control only one house, leadership can support things, like a public option, knowing that it won’t become law.

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

Republicans running the House for 20 of the last 24 years?

You're absolutely right! The Democrats had absolutely no power during the 4 years of the last decade where they controlled both houses of Congress, the second half of that controlling the Presidency as well.

Maybe if the Democrats had pushed for legislation protecting voting rights during the first half of Obama's term, that would have enfranchised and motivated their own voting base to turn out, thereby preventing the disasters that were the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms?

"Democrats leading the 116th Congress are the same crew that ruled the 110th elected in 2006. That mob refused to hold hearings on Katrina when they had all the committee chairmanships because they didn't wish to be identified as the party of 'those people.' They declined to go for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush when they DID have the votes and public support - when many of them were elected to do precisely that.

And they led the House when Democrats allowed health insurance companies to write the Affordable Care Act so they aren't about to champion Medicare For All, which would eliminate 160,000 insurance company jobs while creating 640,000 new positions in health care deliveries. Think of the debate and the political chemistry House Dems would create if they followed the Republican example and passed Medicare For All a dozen or more times in 2019 and 2020, knowing that Repubs would turn it down. But the Dems who will head the 116th Congress are not fighters, except for the moneyed elite that bankrolls their careers.

When we meet the new bosses in January 2019, they'll be pretty much the same as the old bosses."

And their champions here will still be cheering, posting puff piece propaganda from house organs like NYT or WaPo and still denying reality.

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

Republicans running the House for 20 of the last 24 years?

You're absolutely right! The Democrats had absolutely no power during the 4 years of the last decade where they controlled both houses of Congress, the second half of that controlling the Presidency as well.

Maybe if the Democrats had pushed for legislation protecting voting rights during the first half of Obama's term, that would have enfranchised and motivated their own voting base to turn out, thereby preventing the disasters that were the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms?

Perhaps they should have. But most of these impediments arose after the 2010 election, when they lost control of the house.

The U.S. midterms have made history with an unprecedented 100 women elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, among them the first Native American women, Muslim women and the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But there’s another first that has been far less covered—the record number of new lawmakers who campaigned for Medicare for All. There are nearly 50 of them. Also in the last year, 123 incumbent House Democrats co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation. That’s double the number who supported the bill in the previous legislative session.

But there is a group that’s paying close attention. That’s the pharmaceutical, insurance and hospital industry. As The Intercept's Lee Fang reports, over the summer the groups formed a partnership to fight the growing support for expanding Medicare. Documents obtained by The Intercept reveal the group aims to “change the conversation around Medicare for All and minimize the potential for this option in healthcare from becoming part of a national political party's platform in 2020,” unquote. Despite this, the movement for single-payer healthcare is growing. There is now a Medicare for All Caucus, co-chaired by Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, which advocates say is a sign of lawmakers’ increasing interest in the issue.

2) Pelosi just announced one of her major priorities is to push legislation allowing for automatic voter registration. If she can push for this legislation now, what stopped them from doing that before?

Republicans running the House for 20 of the last 24 years?

You're absolutely right! The Democrats had absolutely no power during the 4 years of the last decade where they controlled both houses of Congress, the second half of that controlling the Presidency as well.

Maybe if the Democrats had pushed for legislation protecting voting rights during the first half of Obama's term, that would have enfranchised and motivated their own voting base to turn out, thereby preventing the disasters that were the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms?

Perhaps they should have. But most of these impediments arose after the 2010 election, when they lost control of the house.

You mean after 2010 the Republicans physically stopped all Democratic Members of Congress from standing in front of a camera and a microphone and saying, "voting rights are important?"

Gayle McLaughlin is one of the leading political revolutionaries in the United States today. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and one of the founders of the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA), an independent political organization based in Richmond, California that unites left activists across party lines. She served as a Richmond city council member from 2005-7, mayor from 2007–2015, and again as a city council member from 2015–17.

During this time, the RPA has distinguished itself as one of the most important political organizations in the country. Through electoral activity and community organizing it has challenged the power of Chevron, the oil company that dominated Richmond for decades, and implemented a wide array of local reforms including rent control and a $15 minimum wage. McLaughlin is currently working to expand the RPA model to towns and cities across California and connect corporate-free organizations through a new statewide formation called the California Progressive Alliance (CPA).

Here, we’ve reprinted McLaughlin’s interview with DSA’s Socialist Forum. They discuss her recent campaign for lieutenant governor, the RPA and the CPA, democratic socialism and the role of elected officials in the movement, and the meaning of political revolution today.

SF

You just ran for lieutenant governor in California. Why did you run, and how did the campaign go?

GM

I ran for the statewide office of lieutenant governor because I have served nearly thirteen years in elected office in Richmond: eight years as mayor and over four and a half years as a city council member. Overall we did some major work in Richmond by beating back this big oil giant in our city, Chevron. Over the course of about a decade, we beat Chevron’s money to the point where we have five city council seats filled by corporate-free council members. That’s out of seven total, so it’s a supermajority.

That’s because we have an alliance called the Richmond Progressive Alliance (RPA). I am a co-founder of the RPA, which we started back in 2003 to build a local movement and run corporate-free candidates. Because we had success in the electoral realm and building our local movement, we were able to do some major things like reducing crime by addressing the roots of violence and giving people opportunity — the homicide rate is down 75 percent.

We also won over $100 million in additional city taxes from Chevron, and we were able to limit their pollution. We’ve raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour and passed the first rent control law in California in thirty years, and we’ve implemented many green policies and supported our immigrants as a sanctuary city.

All of these things came about because we had our local movement and our corporate-free representatives in office. People started asking us, all over the state and even in other parts of the country, how we did it. So I began giving presentations around the state about the RPA model and that led to running a statewide campaign. When you run a statewide campaign, you have a larger stage, and we wanted large numbers of people to hear our message about building local political power.....

"Nancy Pelosi yesterday at the Israeli-American Council had a message for those worried about critics of Israel in Congress: 'Remove all doubt in your mind. It's just a question of not paying attention to a few people who may want to go their own way."

"...One of the most disturbing trends in the era of Trump has been the flock of billionaires that have come rushing into the Democratic Party to pose as leaders of an opposition movement to the 'fascist' predations of the real estate mogul. Omidyar's 'soft-power' network has only one mission and that is to stabilize an empire in crisis..."

When Clinton was in the White House, didn't Hillary try to set up a single-payer healthcare program that was government funded like Canada but met strong resistance by the AMA, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry?

IIRC, Hillary's 2008 primary campaign centred on health care reform. It was Obama who was wishy-washy about discussing any specifics on Medicare, and his Obamacare only boosted the interests of the insurance companies.

the major health care lobbyists are very powerful, and they don't want change.

When Clinton was in the White House, didn't Hillary try to set up a single-payer healthcare program that was government funded like Canada but met strong resistance by the AMA, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry?

So Sean which spies do you believe? Me, I believe spies all lie and to believe anything they say is foolishly naive. I also believe that even any Russian attempt to influence the election was marginal at best. Trump got none stop coverage by US media from the time of the Republican nomination. He was the focus of 80 to 90% of news items. Bernie on the other hand was barely mentioned at first and the amount of air space compared to Trump was deliberate and not orchestrated by Russian spies. If I was a betting man I would bet that the members of the oligarchy that own the main stream media thought exposing Trump's stupidity would make him lose. They were wrong. If the Democrats run a old guard candidate against Trump they are going to lose again because most Americans seem to distrust the DNC and many voters loved the Apprentice, especially the dismissals.

"In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more 'Pied Piper' candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party," the Clinton campaign wrote.

As examples of these "pied piper" candidates, the memo named Donald Trump — as well as Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson).

"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously," the Clinton campaign concluded.

So Sean which spies do you believe? Me, I believe spies all lie and to believe anything they say is foolishly naive. I also believe that even any Russian attempt to influence the election was marginal at best. Trump got none stop coverage by US media from the time of the Republican nomination. He was the focus of 80 to 90% of news items. Bernie on the other hand was barely mentioned at first and the amount of air space compared to Trump was deliberate and not orchestrated by Russian spies. If I was a betting man I would bet that the members of the oligarchy that own the main stream media thought exposing Trump's stupidity would make him lose. They were wrong. If the Democrats run a old guard candidate against Trump they are going to lose again because most Americans seem to distrust the DNC and many voters loved the Apprentice, especially the dismissals.

I disagree with you and others attempts here to downplay some attempts at manipulating elections and some acts of imperialism in order to support the agendas you like.

For my part I believe that it is related to human nature that larger more powerful groups of people will seek to bully and control less powerful ones especially when in competition. I do not think there is anything different in one race related to any of this. I do think that larger entities must be resised from overpowering smaller ones even if they use words like for the people or political slogans or historically were abused in the past. If you truly beleive in justice then you don't play teams and resist all of it.

When it comes to cyber manipulation, I completely disagree with your attempt to downplay the "teams" you clearly prefer. I resist them all. I also do not buy any of the bullshit that some are more unherently good or bad. In fact that makes me very angry. I am confident that any country competing in the present geopolitical landscapeto manipulate others or to control others are using cyber manipulation. The reason is simple: economics. If they are going to invest in killing machines that are much more expensive and easier to track then they are going to invest in cyber attacks.

When it comes to social media and propaganda, I consider all large groups as significant users. Again this is economics. Also these are harder to track, potentially more effective. with fewer downsides and much cheaper. I think your arguments to minimize the effectiveness of these social media attacks are stupid and naive. I think almost all, if not all states are using the tactic. I think the Russians did this and theya re only one of many. I do not pretend for a personal agenda that this does not work, did not work or is somehow immune from criticism due to previous wrongs the party suffered or which team they play for.

I am not particularly convinced that all parties who have claimed to support the people actually do or did.

Sean that is the difference between you and I. I don't cheer for any of the "teams." CHineses neo-colonialism is just another Western moral equivalency fallacy. If China is an imperial power just like NATO please show me a comparative list of military bases for the two powers. If China is just like the US please show me the School of the America's where they are training torturers for countries under their influence. Then finally you can tell me all about the coups China has orchestrated in the last decade or two compared to NATO. I answer your posts because you call people stupid because they do not share your repulsive and reprehensible moral equivalency argument. No all countries are not the same. China is just not in the same imperial league and when you equate it to the Western oligarchy's imperialism you are merely absolving yourself of the responsibility for changing our governments actions in the world.

Sean that is the difference between you and I. I don't cheer for any of the "teams." CHineses neo-colonialism is just another Western moral equivalency fallacy. If China is an imperial power just like NATO please show me a comparative list of military bases for the two powers. If China is just like the US please show me the School of the America's where they are training torturers for countries under their influence. Then finally you can tell me all about the coups China has orchestrated in the last decade or two compared to NATO. I answer your posts because you call people stupid because they do not share your repulsive and reprehensible moral equivalency argument. No all countries are not the same. China is just not in the same imperial league and when you equate it to the Western oligarchy's imperialism you are merely absolving yourself of the responsibility for changing our governments actions in the world.

You simply have this endless running of of stram man arguments and false equivilance. Yet you wonder why I am not dazzled and impressed by your logic.

I never stated that China and NATA were the same. Nor that China is just like the US. I never equated anything.

This is you -- as usual -- trying to set up both sides of an argument so that you can then decide the outcome.

Things do not need to be the same or equivalent in order to be discussed and noted. This standard of yours is bullshit.

And of course your teams comment is the same bullshit you regularly serve up. I claimed that you were prefering a team so you put in quotes "teams I prefer" and state that I prefer teams. It is extremely clear to any who is able and willing to read that I was rejecting teams but you lie as usual. You wonder why I have absolutely no respect for you or your debating style?